USA Election 2012 — Page 6

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

Obama is Mitt, Mitt is Obama.

that's bs.  Obama and Romney are very different people. 

This is true.

I always find the "both parties are the same, man" line to be silly. Just because things don't change drastically (generally) from President to President doesn't mean that every President is the same as the last.

While it's possible that they are very different people (we really don't know because all we have is what they tell us and what the journalists are allowed to print), what they could do as president is restricted by factors beyond their control.

Voting either of them in would probably have as near identical results as to make no odds.

Look at the promises they make before they get in and compare it to what they actually do (even the few that don't promise much).

That's not all, them being dishonest or lacking foresight, a large chunk of that is down to living in a chaotic world and being largely powerless.

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said: 

The 10th Amendment always applies.

it doesn't apply to sports betting.   

The 10th Amendment always applies.

no, it only applies to those things not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States.

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Alan Grayson, Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Carter, Chris Matthews...I have my own list of boogey-people who are extremist incompetent loud-mouthed idiots. If the media was hammering the Democratic Party about them the way Republicans are attacked for this or that person you'd have a very different view of things.

you may be right.   But you can't control the media.   The media is going to target republicans whenever possible.   What the party can do, is give the media less ammunition.

If the GOP were motivated to constantly eat its own whenever the media pounced, we would never get anything done.

I am not talking about eating its own words, I am just saying the Republicans need to be more careful of what they say and avoid giving the media more ammunition.  Again, the party can't control the media, but they can control themselves.   For example: It should have been obvious as hell that it would be unwise for Palin to use the words "shuck and jive".   I am not saying what see said was racist,  I am saying that it should have been obvious as hell that the media would pounce on her for saying it.   Republicans need to think, and talk smarter.  

Mrebo said:

The GOP doesn't need to be held captive, always on the watch, trying to squash elected people who don't toe the media's standards.

and along republicans think that way,  the party will have a more difficult time shaking itself free of the perceptions that the media has painted about the party. 

Mrebo said:

Plenty of people like Bachmann, even if you don't. Only her own constituents have a say. I don't want stronger parties than we now have.

I am pretty sure her constituents don't like the fact the Obama won reelection.    Her constituents need to realize that every time she opened her big mouth and said something stupid, she was making it harder for a republican to the win the White House.   And no, I am not proposing that we give the parties more power than they have now. 

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

And it's not only the abortion, it's all the ladyparts  issues.

??? 

The most pressing issues based on the alleged threat of the GOP. ??? was my point.

still not getting you. 

Mrebo said:

of course feminism doesn't equal abortion.  never said it did.  All I did say was that it is considered a women's rights issue. 

We were talking abortion, you invoked "Feminists." Ladyparts were a focus of this campaign (lol) even if you missed it. It was more pronounced (killing myself lol) than usual, making it THE issue for women, where Mitt Romney was not only going to take away abortions, he was going to take away birth control and ladyparts products. Women were actively reduced to ladyparts by liberals in this campaign.

where did they get the idea that Romney was going to take away ladyparts products.   As for the abortion issue itself,  all I can say is I saw ad on tv that showed Romney in multiple instances indicating he wanted Roe v. Wade overturned.    

Mrebo said:

Mrebo said:

Lots of feminists voted for Romney, if one thinks feminism is something more substantial.

?  I'd like to see some proof that lots of feminists voted for Romney.  I'd be willing to bet my life savings that many more feminists voted for Obama than did for Romney.    

If one doesn't take the stingy view that Feminism = ladyparts, lots of feminists (people who believe in women having equal opportunities) voted for Romney.

I think the definition of feminist is more complicated and just "someone who believes in women having equal opportunities".   I believe in women having equal opportunities, but yet I would not consider myself a feminist.

Mrebo said:

Or do you think many of the women who voted for Romney wish to be 'put in binders'?

I am sure they don't, but just how many of the women that voted for Romney do you think actively participate in the fight for women's rights.   Do you think many of them support the ERA?  Do you think many of them belong to feminist groups?   Do you think many of them actively support protests for women's rights?    Hasn't feminist been historically more of a liberal thing than a conservative thing?    

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

maybe, but there is no way they'd win a nomination under the Republican banner, and yet Akins was able to do so.  

I honestly don't know if that is true. If Clinton moved to Maine, I could see him being elected there as a Republican. Again, Maine elects liberal leaning Republicans (and yesterday a liberal independent). At least Clinton was sufficiently moderate that I find that plausible.

I didn't say elected, I said there is no way either Clinton would win the nomination/primary.   Do you actually think a majority of Republicans  in Maine would vote for a Clinton in the primary? 

Mrebo said:

Mrebo said:

I really am serious about it. I'm not actually a Republican, never have been. When I registered, I chose no party.

I can not find the words to express how much this shocks me.

For the formative years of my political life, I identified as a moderate. I finally realized the "moderate" label was just a way to convey to others that I'm not nuts, not an ideologue, not like those people you hate in the news, that I'm actually thoughtful. It's an excuse to talk up the positions where I'm less reliably "conservative."

moderate is more than that.  I will never understand your prejudice against those who are moderate. 

Mrebo said:

Do I need to endear myself to those who would dismiss me as a partisan?

no.

Mrebo said:

Do I need to constantly attack people who are generally on my side to make a point? I don't think so.

no,  but you need to willing to criticize them in the instances that they are not on your side.    There is no reason you have to agree with the Conservative side on every single issue.    Nothing wrong with saying that sometimes the Conservatives are right and sometimes the liberals are. 

Mrebo said:

So you are telling if someone were to win the Republican primary, but then was arrest for murder, that there is no way for the Republican party to get that person's name off the ballot and have him replaced by someone else?

It would depend on the state's law, there may be provisions for incarceration. There was a certain date after which if Akin did not withdraw the party would have been forbid from replacing him. Mostly the party can declare they do not support the candidate and then not give him money.

But depending upon state law and the date and time,  the party might be able to remove an Akins from the ballot.   

Mrebo said:

There may be a state that would allow the party to have the candidate removed from their party line but that is completely speculative and there would certainly be time restrictions on doing so. But I think it's a good thing that backroom bosses of party hierarchy don't have such total control.

you are probably right.   Glad to hear you admit the existence of party backroom bosses.   When I talked about why I didn't want to vote for Romney, I brought up fear of the backroom bosses of the Republican party.  Everyone made fun of me. 

Mrebo said:

 

Mrebo said:

You shouldn't believe the disgusting narrative pushed by Democrats that Republicans don't have sufficient sympathy for rape victims.

and the republicans make the narrative more believable every time an Akins opens his big mouth.

Expressing a principled view against abortion doesn't make one an Akin.

never said it.   But saying something like a pregnancy via rape is a gift from God, does make one an Akin. 

Mrebo said:

It would be like me calling every pacifist a Jane Fonda and attacking the Democratic Party for being traitorous wimps.

I never said every Republican was an Akin.    But that is the perception many have about the party. 

Mrebo said:

 

Mrebo said:

I agree Akin was an idiot who deserved shunning. Murdock was talking about how he can possibly have a moral opposition to all abortion. Even if you don't agree with him, it's a respectable position. It's the way I respect pacifists even though I think they are terribly naive.

it may be a respectable position, but it doesn't mean it is wise to call a pregnancy via rape, a gift from God.  Its insensitive.

I'll grant you that. But I wouldn't run a person out of the party for not expressing himself well.

just remember, every time a Republican doesn't "express him/herself well, he/she gives ammunition to the press and makes it more difficult for a republican to win the White House. 

Mrebo said:

 

Mrebo said:

Mrebo said:

Obama said there should be no restriction on abortion, ever. The Democratic Party removed the word "rare" from their platform when it comes to abortion. To me, that is extreme. If we want to demonize a party based on the issue of abortion it should be the Democratic Party.

of course you'd say that,  you're pro-life. 

Intentionally removing from a party platform the idea that abortions should be "rare" is only objectionable because I'm pro-life?

well who the heck is it going to be more objectionable for, the pro-lifer or the pro-choicer?

I'd hope that people on both sides want it to be rare. That had been in the Democratic platform. But I suppose you're right, rare abortions would be more objectionable to pro-choice people. (I see what I did there)

*sigh*  why can't you just admit that removing the idea that abortions should be rare, would more palatable to the pro-choice person than the pro-life person.   I would think that would be obvious.

Mrebo said:

 

Mrebo said:

Permit an abortion of a 9 month old fetus is only objectionable because I'm pro-life? No, no, no.

if you were pro-choice you wouldn't find it objectionable. 

walkingdork expressed some...let's say reservations about it.

hmm,  I'll have to find where did this. 

Mrebo said:

I like how you've (however unintentionally) reduced Feminism to concern about ladyparts and pro-choice to being pro-abortion.

that is 100% total horseshit and you know it!   I have not done any such thing!  All I did was say that many feminists, view the abortion issue as a women's rights issue.   That is completely different than saying that abortion is THE ONLY women's rights issue!  Oh my God!

Bingowings said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

Obama is Mitt, Mitt is Obama.

that's bs.  Obama and Romney are very different people. 

This is true.

I always find the "both parties are the same, man" line to be silly. Just because things don't change drastically (generally) from President to President doesn't mean that every President is the same as the last.

While it's possible that they are very different people (we really don't know because all we have is what they tell us and what the journalists are allowed to print), what they could do as president is restricted by factors beyond their control.

1. maybe you don't realize it,  but in America the journalists are free to print whatever they want.   Read the 1st amendment to our Constitution.  

2.  and of course their President's powers are restricted and that is a good thing.   Unlike other places, we don't like being ruled by an all power monarch. 

Bingowings said:

Voting either of them in would probably have as near identical results as to make no odds.

maybe, maybe not but you would weren't talking about results.   You said "Obama is Mitt, Mitt is Obama"  that is just simply not true.

Bingowings said:

Look at the promises they make before they get in and compare it to what they actually do (even the few that don't promise much).

That's not all, them being dishonest or lacking foresight, a large chunk of that is down to living in a chaotic world and being largely powerless.

it really has to to with the fact that in order for the President to get anything done, he needs the cooperation of Congress.  No matter which one was elected, a part of Congress was going to be from the opposite party,  thus making it difficult for the President to get done what he wants to get done.   

Bingowings said:

and the point of this was? 

I think this thread has just turned into another politics thread.  There's nothing really that distinguishes it at this point.

I was just updating on the whole tumbleweed situation.

If you aren't ready for an all powerful monarch (it's always the monotheists who complain about this I notice) why don't you make a machine President?

It would be much more efficient and you wouldn't need to re-elect it as it could be programmed to move with the times.

Bingowings said:

If you aren't ready for an all powerful monarch (it's always the monotheists who complain about this I notice) why don't you make a machine President?

It would be much more efficient and you wouldn't need to re-elect it as it could be programmed to move with the times.

*sigh* 

*sigh*lon.

Warbler said:

It may be a gift from God to that guy,  but to the woman who was made pregnant via rape, it is her worst nightmare come true.

Ditto for the 22 year old college graduate whose life is just barely starting and isn't ready to have her finances and body destroyed by a baby.

Her body?  Destroyed?  No, her body is altered.  But someone else's body is destroyed.

You really should read some of those biographies of unborn fetuses.

The crazy stuff they think and do will make your drawers drop.

I hear they get even better in the first few months after birth.

darth_ender said:

I hear they get even better in the first few months after birth.

Normally, but not always.  And they don't necessarily get all the way better.